Last week [Kalona, Iowa's] Chamber of Commerce and Washington County sheriff pulled over people with out-of-state license plates and offered them an all-expense paid visit ... to the town of 2,300, about 20 miles southwest of Iowa City....

[L]ast Thursday chamber member Larry Moeller and Sheriff Jerry Dunbar set out to find a tourist to "arrest."

"We'll go up to the car and ask them if they have about 20 hours to spend with us here in Kalona," Moeller said.

Armed with binoculars and flashing red lights, the pair began looking for an unsuspecting passer-by....

It didn't take long before [one couple] were persuaded to take the detour into Kalona, where they were given a basket full of goodies from local businesses, toured the local attractions and met the town's mayor.

They also were treated to dinner and even a night's stay.

"It's interesting, it's fun. He probably pulled over the right people. We didn't really have an agenda," said Cheri Cunningham. "Everybody's been so nice, so friendly, and the little downtown area here is darling."

Well, I'm pleased that the Cunninghams aren't personally upset by this. But it seems like an abuse of power, and a Fourth Amendment violation. As I wrote about a similar program, a police officer's flashing red lights at a driver, which causes the driver to support, constitutes a seizure — a situation "when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen." Under the Fourth Amendment, such seizures must be reasonable, which generally means (for brief seizures) either that there's reasonable suspicion that the seized person has committed a crime (including a traffic infraction), or that there's some administrative need mandating a particular non-law-enforcement search or seizure system (such as airport screening). Neither is present here — the desire to promote tourism is surely not enough of an "administrative need" to justify seizures — so the stop violates the Fourth Amendment.

More broadly, a police officer is giving you a fright, taking up your time, and likely slowing down other drivers (who are concerned about safety, or who are stuck behind other drivers who are gawking). As importantly, the police officer is exercising his coercive authority over you. That he's doing it for a good motive doesn't change the fact that for the few moments that you're being pulled over, your liberty is being restrained, however briefly. Some such restraints on liberty have to be tolerated, but it seems to me that for each there should be a very good reason. An invitation to stay in town, even combined with free goodies does not, I think, qualify as a very good reason.

For yet another similar story from five years ago, see here. Thanks for the pointer to PopeHat, which has more thoughts on the case.

The similar story is pretty horrifying. I4 is 70 mph for most of the stretch between Orlando and Tampa. There's a heavy traffic load pretty much all the time and spectacular wrecks often enough to make me nervous about driving on it. Anything that needlessly complicates that stretch of highway - if that's where the cops were working - is a very bad idea.

Isn't the point of getting into a position of power - becoming a police officer - or a government official, a professor, a senior corporate officer, law firm partner, or whatever - being able to do whatever you want and not having to justify yourself?

What if the person being pulled over under this program flees? You could imagine a string of events following resulting in injury or death to the person, police officers, or innocent bystanders. What impact would the suspicionless stop have on the chain of criminality? Would the whole chain be tainted?

More broadly, a police officer is giving you a fright, taking up your time, and likely slowing down other drivers (who are concerned about safety, or who are stuck behind other drivers who are gawking). As importantly, the police officer is exercising his coercive authority over you.

It reminds me of an anecdote about a person of leftist persuasion stopped by a cop in Salazar's Portugal. There was even a low-level chase involved. The guy was stopped to be presented with a "driver of the month" award...

Homer stares at a bowling ball for a while after looking up "marketing", then leaps forward: "Of course!" He stands in front of the bowling alley firing a shotgun repeatedly into the air and entreating the screaming people around him to come and bowl.

Um, It's pretty clearly unconstitutional, but so? Even for a civil lawsuit, what are the damages in this case? Some inconvenience, but that's probably less than the overnight stay and whatever, and I bet if you get the package you have to waive a civil suit, if you don't want the package and still want to sue, what are the damages? $100 for your time?

It is absolutely clear that if you have drugs or some other illegal substance (fireworks) or a murder weapon in your car all that evidence would have to be suppressed so it seems like a stupid policy since it could only result in bad results to the police (suppression of important evidence say a body for example), or goodies to the law abiding citizen. The innocent and the crook get a bonus out of the program. That's why it's a bad idea, but not that much worse that cash for clunkers.

Robert Jordan sued the New Haven, Conn., police department after it rejected him as a police officer because he scored too high on an intelligence test. But U.S. District Judge Peter C. Dorsey has dismissed Jordan’s suit, ruling that he “may have been disqualified unwisely, but he was not denied equal protection” as defined by law. Jordan’s IQ is approximately 125, versus a national average police officer IQ of 104. New Haven argued that a too-smart cop “could soon get bored with police work and quit after undergoing costly academy training.”(AP)

It sounds like the town's Chamber of Commerce is too cheap to spend real money on a professional marketing campaign. What's next?

Cop: License and registration please. Do you know why I pulled you over?

Driver: No, officer.

Cop: Well I see here your insurer is AAA. Now, that's not a crime in this jurisdiction but it ought to be. Do you know how much you can save by switching to GEICO? If you call this 800-number here within 24 hours and mention my name, you get a free souvenir T-shirt!

A friend, driving with his wife one evening in a nearby town, was pulled over by a cop who asked him if he knew he was going 35 MPH in a 45 MPH zone. My friend that that over and threw the question incredulously back at the cop, who said something like, "just thought you'd like to know." That particular cop had a reputation for pulling this sort of stunt.

In my opinion, police far too often create a worse hazard by pulling people over on roads where one cannot safely get out of the way of traffic, than the offender posed while driving. I generally turn on my flashers and proceed to a safe spot to pull over if subject to a traffic stop; the cops get a bit upset until I explain what I was doing....

I guess those United Way "arrests" would be even more of an "abuse of power".

There's no constitutional dimension since United Way isn't a state actor. I will say, however, that the third time I got a call at work telling me that I would be "arrested," I ripped the guy a new one about how inappropriate that whole scheme is and told him I was never donating to the organization again as long as they kept calling me at work about it. That was almost three years ago and they haven't called me back.

So, Bob, you are taking it on faith that if some out-of-state tourist refused to pull over, that the deputies featured in this story, recognizing that they had no lawful authority to pull the car over in the first place, would not escalate? That they would not take it as an affront to their AUTHORITAH, and call for backup and hound the car until it stopped and then arrest the person?

You think they wouldn't invent some traffic violation to justify the initial stop under those circumstances?

Your experience with law enforcement is different than mine. Also, we differ on whether it is appropriate for law enforcement to detain people involuntarily -- however briefly -- for a joke or for fun or for some charitable program.

To the extent it's a § 1983 violation, the damages are $100 for your time, plus attorneys' fees. If I were the town, I would stop this sooner, rather than later, on the off chance that someone gets upset enough to make an example of the town using the court system, most likely by bleeding them as much as possible through fees.

That said, I'm not surprised those 'stopped' didn't think about that, or that there weren't any complaints to speak of - this is the first I've heard of it and I practice in the area and have a bunch of family that live nearby. That stretch of 218 is mostly local, with the exception of people traveling from Minnesota to St. Louis. Many locals would think it's a cute idea, not an affront to liberty.

As far as PR goes, my guess is that it was more the
Washington County powers-that-be, rather than the Amish in Kalona, who thought this one up. It would be fairly typical.

Oh, and for Harsh Truth - putting on the flashers and pulling over at the next safe place is NOT a felony eluding in Iowa. Not unless you're going 25 MPH over the speed limit, AND either 1) You injure someone; 2) You're DUI/OWI; or 3) You're participating in a felony. The best/worst you could get is a serious misdemeanor, and that only if they could convince an Iowa jury that you were willfully disobeying - good luck with that.

It's intimidation, plain and simple. If a cop stops me with flashers and asks if I have 20 hours to spend in their town, all expensies paid, that amounts at least to making me feel that I'm under arrest.

I would ask if I was under arrest, and if so, under what charge. If they refused to answer, then I would demand access to a lawyer. But I would have the feeling through all this that I was dealing with out-of-control cops who might do anything. At least with a real address with real charges I'd know what I was dealing with.

The professor's post, while correct, is a clear example of why most people hate lawyers.

I do not understand this, and none of the subsequent discussion has helped.

Is the idea that it only some kind of ambulance-chasing mentality would lead one to think this use of the police is unacceptable?

Most people, ahem, do not expect to be pulled over by the police unless the latter have reason to believe something is wrong. If I were pulled over while traveliing, I would be damned angry to find out that it was a marketing ploy to get me to visit some local town.

Not that I get pulled over very often, but once I pulled over as far as I could go (on a narrow curve with no shoulder between the pavement and the guardrail) and it was so obviously unsafe that the cop told me (they had a loudspeaker in their car) to drive ahead to a safer spot. Seems like a sensible thing to do anyway, and I value our police, so don't want to have them get flattened by some idiot as they are getting out of their cruiser to walk up to my car.

I'll take my chances on the felony evading bit, since I am driving with flashers on and at a slow speed - obviously not evading. Never had any problem so far; this only happens once every 4 or 5 years, anyway. This is Massachusetts, for what it's worth.

And what about other traffic? Many states have recently passed laws saying that if there is an emergency vehicle (police car, ambulance, fire vehicle, etc.) stopped on the right shoulder of a road with its flashing lights turned on, then any vehicle passing that emergency vehicle must slow down. If this is a multi=lane highway and they are traveling in the right hand lane, they must move one lane to the left and slow down before passing the parked emergency vehicle.

I have a sister-in-law who came upon a state police car (in a southern state) parked on the shoulder of a multi-lane highway shortly after that state had passed such a law (although she had never heard of this new law). The trooper had evidently written someone a speeding ticket. That person had received a ticket and had left and the trooper was sitting in his parked car (with his flashing lights still on) completing some paperwork. My sister-in-law slowed to just below 50 (on a 65 mph highway) but did not shift to the left lane) and as she passed the trooper, he pulled out behind her, hit his siren, and pulled her over and gave her a ticket for passing a stopped emergency vehicle. Many more states have since passed such laws, but have failed to give them much publicity -- apparently southern states are no longer the only ones viewing these laws as being handy revenue generators.

So... would other cars on the highway be risking tickets if they failed to move one lane to the left... or risking accidents if they did make such a move?

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.